Col 1:15  ‘He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.’

How can Paul use ‘firstborn’ language here? Does this mean that he conceives of Christ as simply the first thing that God created?

In the 4th century, the Arians taught that Jesus was the highest-ranking being in God’s creation.  He was above the rest of creation, but below God himself in rank and divinity.

This heresy is followed today by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Their New World Translation has:

‘by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,’

The repeated interpolation of the word ‘other’ is intended to support the denial of Christ’s deity by that sect; it is, however, unwarranted by the text itself.  Attention to context shows that the meaning of ‘firstborn’ in this verse indicates priority in rank, not priority in time.

J.I. Packer notes Paul’s two uses for ‘fistborn’, in v15 and then in v18:

‘In the phrase firstborn of all creation in Colossians 1:15, firstborn is used exclusively to mean ‘existing prior to’, but in firstborn from the dead in verse 18 it is used inclusively to mean that Jesus was the first of the dead to be raised. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are Arians, hold that firstborn must bear the same sense both times and signify in verse 15 that the Son was the first creature to be made. Paul’s explanation of firstborn in verse 16 – ‘for in him all things were created’ – rules that out, and was doubtless meant to, for Paul would have realized the ambiguity; but we have to admit that it is his shifting use of the word that made the misunderstanding possible.’ (’18 Words’)

Although in the OT, ‘firstborn’ usually refers to the first person to be born in a family, it actually has more to do with rights and privileges than with order of birth. This is the meaning here. Christ is number one over all creation; he occupies the number one position in God’s family; he is the one the Father loves most.

As usual context is key:

‘In Colossians 1:15-23, Paul is elevating Christ above all things in creation. He notes that Jesus is the image of God (15), that Jesus created everything for himself (16), that Jesus holds all things together (17), that Jesus is the head of the church (18), that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (18), and that Jesus is preeminent in all things (18).’ (Source)

On Paul’s use of language here, HSB comments:

‘Paul is using the language about a firstborn son metaphorically, as the Old Testament does. Jesus is not presented as a creation of God or as a child of God born through some Goddess (as was common in pagan mythology), but as the chief of God’s family, whether the old family of creation or the new family of redemption. He is before it. He is the cause of the family. He is the leader of the whole family. In every way he is first. Yet he is not part of the creation, nor even one of the redeemed, for he is the image of God and the one in whom all the fullness of God dwelt.’

Michael Bird offers the following reasons why the Arian interpretation of this verse is mistaken:

(1) There are better words besides prōtotokos that could be supplied if Paul wanted to refer to Christ as an angelic creature, such as prōtoktistos (“created first”), prōtoplastos (“first formed”), prōtogonos (“first generated”), prōtosystatos (“primordial”), prōtochronos (“first in chronology”), or prōtopresbyteros (“first ancient being”)…

(2) In Col 1.16, Christ is not part of ta panta “all things,” the poem distinguishes Christ from other angelic powers and heavenly intermediaries, the same distinction that generally separates God from creation and angels in other Jewish and Christian writings (e.g. Isa 44.24; 66.1-2; Sir 24.8; 1 Enoch 9.5);

(3) Two unique aspects are also attributed to Christ in the poem: first, that creation was made “for him” (1.16); second, that God’s “fullness” inhabits him (1.19), neither of which are attributed to lesser angelic powers as far as I am aware.

This verse provides a good illustration of the importance of systematic and historical theology in the interpretation of the biblical text.

‘All that the church learned in the Arian controversy forbids us to tolerate any exegesis that compromises either the pre-existence or the deity (creator-hood) of the Saviour.’ (McLeod)